Report stolen mods here

[steve_v]

54 minutes ago, flywlyx said:

The latest updated of SM armory is after 1.4 release, so as far as the "thief" is spreading latest update, they are covered by T2.

T2 can't cover anyone or anything if their claim to the material is in itself a breach of copyright.

If the mod still contains that old multiple-contributor GPL code for example (which it almost certainly does), then the onus is on T2 to prove that all the contributors have signed over their rights, and until they do that their claim to the mod as a whole is void.
SpannerMonkey may well have updated things more recently, but regardless of what the EULA claims, he almost certainly cannot have signed over the rights to T2 because he didn't own all the rights to begin with.
 

54 minutes ago, flywlyx said:

Using the game and creating a mod base on the game means "constitutes your acceptance of its terms".

Cool, awesome. Also liable to spontaneously evaporate if ever competently challenged in a court of law.

Has T2 proven beyond reasonable doubt that all the authors, past and present, have used the game or created content based on it since the EULA change? Have they determined that those updating the mod actually can hand over rights to it?
Until they do, it's all lies and posturing. No matter how much legalese you imply someone must have agreed to, you cannot make them hand over what they never had, nor can you force them to travel backwards in time to get it for you.

Many, many KSP mods incorporate code from multiple contributors, and/or code from generic C#/Unity resources completely unrelated to KSP.  A good number contain assets whose original authors are unreachable or even unknown.
T2's claim that all rights somehow magically transfer to them because they say so, without bothering to examine the original licence or contact the authors involved, is pure fantasy.

Anyway, it's clear we're not going to come to any kind of agreement here. If you want to take that ridiculous, illogical, unenforceable monstrosity of an EULA unchallenged and at face-value, I'm not about to stop you.

Edited September 4, 2020 by steve_v

[flywlyx]

56 minutes ago, steve_v said:

SpannerMonkey may well have updated things more recently, but regardless of what the EULA claims, he almost certainly cannot have signed over the rights to T2 because he didn't own all the rights to begin with.

Technically speaking, it is SM's fault for updating a mod violating either one of the licenses, not the "thief". "Thief" doesn't necessarily need to know and agree to anyone's claim that he is infringing copyright  until a precedent is there. This is the way how T2 covers them.

1 hour ago, steve_v said:

Also liable to spontaneously evaporate if ever competently challenged in a court of law.

I hope that day will come. But before that day comes, "Thieves" holds no responsibility.

1 hour ago, steve_v said:

Many, many KSP mods incorporate code from multiple contributors, and/or code from generic C#/Unity resources completely unrelated to KSP.  A good number contain assets whose original authors are unreachable or even unknown.
T2's claim that all rights somehow magically transfer to them because they say so, without bothering to examine the original licence or contact the authors involved, is pure fantasy.

Anyway, it's clear we're not going to come to any kind of agreement here. If you want to take that ridiculous, illogical, unenforceable monstrosity of an EULA unchallenged and at face-value, I'm not about to stop you.

It is not T2 take the the copyright, it is modder grant it to them. So again, you misunderstood why I said "this is a disgusting fact that modder has to take", it is always modders' fault for uploading mods violating either one of the licenses.

All the "ridiculous, illogical, unenforceable monstrosity" is just the fact sitting there. As I said, until any judge makes a decision, anyone could use it to cover any disgusting excrements as they want to.

[goldenpsp]

Seriously guys?  The basic topic of this thread basically died on the vine.  Do we really need to change it into a licensing argument?

[Lisias]

On 9/4/2020 at 9:19 PM, goldenpsp said:

Seriously guys?  The basic topic of this thread basically died on the vine.  Do we really need to change it into a licensing argument?

If you are talking about "stolen mods", it's unavoidable that we end talking about licensing and copyrights. They are mutually inclusive concepts, it's plain impossible to define a "stolen mod" without them.

[Vanamonde]

Thread closed by OP's request.